Dictatorships are governed by human psychology. The constraints of a dictator are determined by the psychology of the people whom he dictates. In countries where there is a high probability of group psychology manifesting itself, there are more constraints upon the dictator, regardless of the laws or acts he passes, due to the fact that any population is always bigger than the government which serves it.

If dictatorship takes place in a country with high likelihood for the manifestation of group psychology, the dictatorship is more constrained no matter what laws or acts he passes. Therefore, the advantages of dictatorship may be gained without fully taking the impact of the disadvantages.

The disadvantages of dictatorship are that, in countries in which the manifestation of group psychology is less likely, such as in North Korea, Nazi Germany and Maoist China, the dictator controls the people and is not incentivized to act on their behalf in their best interest. Therefore, the people will not be able to depose a malfunctioning leader because they have no legal way of doing so, and trying to do it in an illegal way would most likely only occur with the manifestation of group psychology, which is unlikely in countries such as those listed.

The advantages of dictatorship are that decisions can be made quickly and, in the case of a country with a high probability of group psychology, the dictator will be inclined to act in the best interest of his people to maintain his own position. Therefore, decisions are made faster and are also likely to be carefully thought out due to fear of deposition. The population does not need to have cumbersome checks and balances because they realize that if they don't like what the dictator is doing, they can always revolt. Therefore, their checks and balances don't have to encumber the nation; and in the place of those checks and balances, the people will always be ready to depose a malfunctioning leader, and will always have the power to do so.

Dictators often want to preserve their own self-interest. If the dictator wants to stay in power, and knows that he will be ousted if he does not make the people happy, he will be incentivized to do what he can to make people happy, even if for his own sake; similar to the incentivization of people through money in Capitalist economics. Businesses do not want to go bankrupt; governments do not want revolution.

Wrote this a long time ago which is why it says "Capitalist economics" but it still makes sense to me.

Businesses pursue their own self-interest and customers can go elsewhere if there is a mediocre product.

What about elected leaders who know they could have limitless political opportunity as long as they keep their people happy by doing what they want?

Of course there's the problem of exclusivity- there are many businesses, but a dictator is one person, and has no competition, and competition in Capitalism is what causes evolution. Well, what about the incentive of indefinite influence? Would it count as an "Incentive" if a politician had a reason (Even though he is greedy for power) to stay within the confines of what people want, so that he can act swiftly in a national emergency, and have the power to do the limited things government is meant to do, while also not having the power to give people EVERYTHING? (Because a government that can give you everything can also take it away)